Chess Life still needs an editor
The Masked Bishop
improving, the lack of a real editor at the helm still shows.
--Larry Evans "Reflections" article. No intro, no conclusion, and no
logical structure. Just a meandering set of paragraphs, some with
poorly-interspersed quotes, most of them unrelated to each other.
--Cover story. Chess Life continues its new fascination with
techno-babble. Dense, blandly-written prose which lost my interest
within two paragraphs.
--Kalev Pehme's continued exploration of English verb tense agreement
gets tiring.
--Andy Soltis continues to explore the twilight zones of chess. Well,
someone has to do it, right? For history buffs only.
--Susan Polgar's new photo is nice. Too bad Pal Benko insists on
running his circa 1954 mug shot. And Shabalov needs to buy shirts with
collars big enough for his neck.
--Jerry Hanken's gratuitious, sexist comment about Jennifer Shahade
was not appreciated, and is exactly the kind of thing a real editor
would cut out of a professional publication.
Bottom line: better than last month's atrocity, but not by much. Chess
Life is still running on its worst streak of all time.
TMB
Ron Suarez
TMB, you truly have a case of mental and humane destitution.
It's a chess magazine schmuck!
The technical article is about catching internet cheating in CHESS
Just because you could not understand the intricacies of the article
does not mean it was bland. It means that you are dull mentally..
Larry Evans' article gives a very accurate and good viewpoint of the
professional chess scene both historically and presently. You may not
like his style but who really cares what you like? You are certainly
not in a position in life to matter anyway.
Pelme is improving and most likely will continue to improve. Give the
guy some slack you hypercritical boor.
Soltis' article is certainly consistent with his style of the last 15
years or so. If you don't like it just don't read it.
Pal Benko's picture is certainly not from the 50's. There are other
pictures of the contributors that are a few years old, so what? If
this is truly reflective of your pickiunish standards, you need to get
a life.
Are you seriously calling Hanken's, "Jennifer Shahade, as beautiful as
she is strong,..." comment sexist and gratuitious? If so, you really
do need to get out more!
Bottom line, TMB is showing signs of being an anal retentive,
insulting, idiot.
Ron Suarez
P.S. By the way TMB, if you find the above post insulting to you,
good. You obviously deserve it.
Ron Suarez
John Fernandez
John Fernandez
Angelo DePalma
A way to cheat readers out of 20 minutes of their lives?
And don't use that fuken langooge on this frikkin newsgroup ok?
"John Fernandez" <jcfern...@aol.commeepmeep> wrote
Neil Brennen
"Angelo DePalma" <adpspamme...@tellurian.net> wrote in message
news:G-2dnYeo07c...@garden.net...
>
> A way to cheat readers out of 20 minutes of their lives?
>
Angelo-Saxon.
...on this frikkin newsgroup ok?
Ron Suarez
Fernandez) wrote:
>Yeah but what the fuck was that "Cheating" article??? Good god.
>
>John Fernandez
Yep, I agree with you John that they could have picked a better
subject to write on. There have been some real howlers throughout the
past though. I guess this is one for the "books".
Ron Suarez
Angelo DePalma
I think online cheating is a great topic. The article could have been
shorter, and more anecdotal. Let's face it, anyone with an ego who loses 10
in a row to someone +/- 100 rating points suspects cheating. I do, and I'm a
pretty good loser OTB. If I had written that article I would have included a
lot of personal stuff. Like the time I got creamed by a 1300 on a USCL G/10.
Or the time a 1920 on ICC beat me 13 in a row, playing instantly (never
using more than about 40 seconds for a G/3). He could have interviewed
someone from ICC, or players who felt they'd been cheated.
All in all, though, I think the recent issue was an improvement over the
last one. They actually covered a tournament that ended six weeks previously
(USATE)! But generally, CL has a long way to go before it's considered a
serious chess publication. Because of USCF's financial difficulties I
wouldn't be surprised to see very up-and-down quality for several years.
I can sum up my impression of the last issue in one word. You know what it
is, the King of Instruments. Rhymes (sortof) with the German word for
"borrow."
Or you can complete this sentence and translate the last word:
Bach spielt eine grosse ______ .
Angelo Saxon
"Ron Suarez" <ron_suar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:51b170tjvu68qv1j8...@4ax.com...
Miriling
>On 4 April 2004 "Angelo DePalma" adpspamme...@tellurian.net wrote in
>Message-id: <luCdnfd9g_r...@garden.net>
>
>
-snipped-
>
>I can sum up my impression of the last issue in one word. You know what it
>is, the King of Instruments. Rhymes (sortof) with the German word for
>"borrow."
>
>Or you can complete this sentence and translate the last word:
>
>Bach spielt eine grosse ______ .
>
>Angelo Saxon
>
>
>"borgen" (German) = "borrow (English)
Sounds like you thought the issue was "boring." But if anything is "boring,"
it's your attempt in creating a German sentence (with a missing word to be
filled in that you think should be "Organ." If that's what you wanted, you
should have given the incomplete sentence as
Bach spielt ein grosses Organ (or better still, "Bach spielte (past tense) ein
grosses Organ" since Johann Sebastian "ist schon lange tot."
George Mirijanian
HAASpittle
not in a position in life to matter anyway..."
(Ron Suarez)
===============
What sort of positions in life must we occupy in order to "matter?"
Haas
Ron Suarez
Old Haasie, you do matter. We need you for our metro district in
Tampa. Or have you forgotten in your state of dementia that you live
in that area?
Ron Suarez
John Fernandez
>Date: 4/4/2004 8:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <51b170tjvu68qv1j8...@4ax.com>
I think the argument is good, but this person knows absolutely nothing about
cheating from the inside, but makes some reasonable assumptions about cheating,
some of which make sense, some of which are off the wall. Some of the points
are just really bizarre. It also makes for a bad cover story - eroding people's
trust in online play. (Or was that the point?)
John Fernandez
HAASpittle
Suarez)
=============
Reminds me of the old Georgia boy who said to his wife, "Honey, I didn't
promise to take you to Florida, I just said I was going to tamper with ya."
Old Haasie
HAASpittle
==============
I've never been out west to the state of Dementia but I've heard the USCF is
moving to its capital... Deadwood City. I know for sure it ain't Rapid City.
Old Haasie
Robert Pawlak
I am the author of the article.
>I think the argument is good, but this person knows absolutely nothing about
>cheating from the inside, but makes some reasonable assumptions about
>cheating,
It depends on what you mean. As far as cheating online, I've never done it. As
far as being cheated, I've played several thousand games on the various
servers, and have been cheated more than once ;-)
There are certainly cheating techniques that were not mentioned in the article,
such as hacking timeseal (which some people claim to have done). However, I did
cover most of the techniques that you could reasonably expect the average
computer savvy individual to know about, or figure out.
> some of which make sense, some of which are off the wall. Some of the points
>are just really bizarre. It also makes for a bad cover story - eroding
>people's
>trust in online play. (Or was that the point?)
John, what bad assumptions are you referring to?
The point was not to erode confidence in online chess. Instead, I had hoped to
get a dialog started about cheating, sans inflammatory rhetoric.
Bob Pawlak (remove 1et.tw to e-mail)
Chess Assistance
http://www.chessassistance.com
Chess Reviews
http://www.chessreviews.com
Robert Pawlak
>shorter, and more anecdotal. Let's face it, anyone with an ego who loses 10
>in a row to someone +/- 100 rating points suspects cheating. I do, and I'm a
>pretty good loser OTB. If I had written that article I would have included a
>lot of personal stuff. Like the time I got creamed by a 1300 on a USCL G/10.
>Or the time a 1920 on ICC beat me 13 in a row, playing instantly (never
>using more than about 40 seconds for a G/3). He could have interviewed
>someone from ICC, or players who felt they'd been cheated.
Angelo,
Kalev wanted the article to be factual, and I agreed with him.
There is plenty of emotion and anecdotal evidence surrounding the practice of
cheating. In reality, we don't really know how much of it goes on, and I think
concentrating on word of mouth, rather than the facts, only serves to get
people more stirred up.
Frankly, I am torqued off over the whole issue. There's really very little the
typical person can do, if they suspect their opponent is cheating. What I did
was document how a person could get even, rather than get mad. I hoped it would
be a bit empowering.
As for being shorter - it probably would have helped readability. Or maybe a
few more pictures to break up the text would have been good.
Robert Pawlak
Yeah John, but tell us what you _really_ think.
John Fernandez
>Date: 4/5/2004 7:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20040405191925...@mb-m11.aol.com>
>
>John,
>
>I am the author of the article.
Yep, was hoping you'd pop up :)
>It depends on what you mean. As far as cheating online, I've never done it.
>As
>far as being cheated, I've played several thousand games on the various
>servers, and have been cheated more than once ;-)
Are you sure? How do you know?
Of course, you probably have. But from my experience most people who scream
"I've been cheated!!" are completely wrong.
>There are certainly cheating techniques that were not mentioned in the
>article,
>such as hacking timeseal (which some people claim to have done).
I still don't believe that one. Lag cheating is another interesting one
(intentionally causing lag). I've heard rumors of timestamp/timeseal being
hacked, but I've never seen a true case.
>However, I did
>cover most of the techniques that you could reasonably expect the average
>computer savvy individual to know about, or figure out.
Agreed.
>John, what bad assumptions are you referring to?
Well, the general premise of the article seems unsettling to me. It seems to
paint a picture that cheating is rampant, and that the user has a lot of onus
to prevent it. I don't like the rating based information, it can easily mislead
you. Also, sending everyone out blunderchecking their games will cause people
to freak out.
I also don't like your suggestions, as they only make the server experience
more difficult for others.
>The point was not to erode confidence in online chess. Instead, I had hoped
>to
>get a dialog started about cheating, sans inflammatory rhetoric.
Between who and who? The servers are best to keep their methods and information
secret.
John Fernandez
Angelo DePalma
I think your article was fine. Great topic. You're right -- we don't have
much to go on when we suspect cheating. The great thing about chess,
however, is that basically it doesn't matter. Nobody dies when a cheater
decides to use his computer online. Nothing is really at stake. That's why I
thought a lighter treatment would have been more fun to read. However, you
did a terrific job. Much better than I could have done.
Best regards,
Angelo DePalma
"Robert Pawlak" <rjpa...@aol.com1et.tw> wrote in message
news:20040405192752...@mb-m11.aol.com...
Angelo DePalma
should visit them occasionally.
Angelo
"Robert Pawlak" <rjpa...@aol.com1et.tw> wrote in message
news:20040405192931...@mb-m11.aol.com...
SDchessTDL
This made me laugh. When they legallized gambling in Deadwood the land
prices became the highest in South Dakota. They even raised the land
prices in Rapid City
USCF would go broke pruchasing in Deadwood.
Terry
drahmiel
>>to
>>get a dialog started about cheating, sans inflammatory rhetoric.
Personally I found the suggestion that a great disparity between lightning and
Standard ratings suggests cheating. My bullet rating is about 1500 and my
Standard around 2000 because... SHOCKING... when I take more time for my
moves, I play much better. Also I take standard games much more seriously. In
a world where countless times when I beat a much higher rated player on line I
get to hear accusatings of "nice computer" or "nice cheating" from their
wounded egos, your "Orange Alert" article was no help at all.
John Fernandez
>prices became the highest in South Dakota. They even raised the land
>prices in Rapid City
>USCF would go broke pruchasing in Deadwood.
> Terry
That's because of the HBO show.
And anyway, the USCF would go broke purchasing money.
John Fernandez
The Masked Bishop
to the table, this particular post of his was riddled with poor
punctuation, misspellings, and just plain bad word choices. I
particularly enjoyed "humane destitution." You should write for Chess
Life, Ron...your illiteracy would be right at home in a magazine that
is in serious editorial trouble.
By the way, it's called a comma. Get out your Strunk and White and
learn how to use one, loser.
Robert Pawlak
>>As
>>far as being cheated, I've played several thousand games on the various
>>servers, and have been cheated more than once ;-)
>
>Are you sure? How do you know?
As I state in the article, it is impossible to know without direct observation.
I've reported three suspected cheats, one was confirmed by ICC speedtrap.
Nothing happened with the other two. And I was quite sure about one of them
(this last was on USCL). Generally speaking, I try to screen people with the
procedure outlined in the article. So I think I have lower exposure than
someone that doesn't.
>
>Of course, you probably have. But from my experience most people who scream
>"I've been cheated!!" are completely wrong.
>
This is probably true. Unfortunately, it is a handy excuse for people after
they lose. I was hoping that the procedure I outlined would inject a little
objectivity into the issue.
>>John, what bad assumptions are you referring to?
>
>Well, the general premise of the article seems unsettling to me. It seems to
>paint a picture that cheating is rampant, and that the user has a lot of onus
>to prevent it. I don't like the rating based information, it can easily
>mislead
>you. Also, sending everyone out blunderchecking their games will cause people
>to freak out.
John, I never made any statements about cheating being rampant. This is
something that you brought to the article.
I would hope they don't freak out. However, ratings info, move times, and the
game score constitute nearly the total body of information that is available.
If you want to draw an inference, you've got to work with what you have.
As for the blunder check, I would hope that people are running one anyway, when
they do post mortems.
>
>I also don't like your suggestions, as they only make the server experience
>more difficult for others.
>
>>The point was not to erode confidence in online chess. Instead, I had hoped
>>to
>>get a dialog started about cheating, sans inflammatory rhetoric.
>
>Between who and who? The servers are best to keep their methods and
>information
>secret.
>
The population of people that play online, and the management of the servers
(secondarily).
Ideally, what I would like is a "good feeling" that the servers are enforcing
anti-cheating policies. Servers should also conspicuously post addresses for
people to send complaints to (maybe like a trouble-ticket approach?). Some
still do not do this.
I don't expect total transparency insofar as cheat determination is concerned.
What I would like are some assurances, and feedback when an accusation is made
(once again, I think the trouble ticket analogy is a good one).
>John Fernandez
Chess One
> >>It depends on what you mean. As far as cheating online, I've never done
it.
> >>As
> >>far as being cheated, I've played several thousand games on the various
> >>servers, and have been cheated more than once ;-)
> >
> >Are you sure? How do you know?
>
> As I state in the article, it is impossible to know without direct
observation.
> I've reported three suspected cheats, one was confirmed by ICC speedtrap.
> Nothing happened with the other two. And I was quite sure about one of
them
> (this last was on USCL). Generally speaking, I try to screen people with
the
> procedure outlined in the article. So I think I have lower exposure than
> someone that doesn't.
Robert, if I play a "1350" player who manages 18 perfect moves in a Pelikan,
I know he is cheating. Shoot! I am a thousand points higher and its hard as
hell not to confuse the lines :)
This is in my experience, and very common. I have no idea why John Fernandez
denies it. Even GMs says its so.
Phil Innes
Robert Pawlak
Thanks for the kind words. To a certain extent, I expected some controversy.
And some frank talk about this subject is good thing.
Robert Pawlak
>and
>Standard ratings suggests cheating. My bullet rating is about 1500 and my
The article does say that this is a warning sign. However, it resists making
_any_ hard and fast rules. If you did not get this impression from the
article, then I suggest you read it again. Everything in there needs to be
tempered with a certain amount of judgement that only comes with some
experience with the particular server in question (i.e. ratings are computed
differently, population of players is different, etc).
The article also gives another recourse to people besides the alternative you
mention. My hope is that people will use the procedure rather than throw out an
immediate accusation. Maybe then they'll realize that you made a tactical
blunder on move 34, that a computer doing a three ply search would have
spotted.
Robert Pawlak
Yeah, perfect play in certain openings is really suspicious. While I've seen
some 1300 players reel off perfect theory like a GM, their middlegame is
generally not of the same caliber.
sandirhodes
"The Masked Bishop" wrote
> By the way, it's called a comma. Get out your Strunk and White and
> learn how to use one, loser.
Acceptable is: ... learn how to use one, Loser!
Neil Brennen
"sandirhodes" <rhoes...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bEJcc.20$_i4.14@okepread01...
The word "loser" needn't have a capital L.
Ron Suarez
Sure it does...The Masked Bishop has capitals... :-)
It really is The Masked Boor
Neil Brennen
Carl Boor is The Masked Bishop?
Blaster
> Carl Boor is The Masked Bishop?<
I've left you all in thrall long enough. Take your pick:
The Masked Bishop is:
a) Tim Redman
b) Tim Just
c) Tim Hanke
d) Creighton Sloan
John Fernandez
>I know he is cheating. Shoot! I am a thousand points higher and its hard as
>hell not to confuse the lines :)
I sincerely hope you're kidding. I've seen 3 digit players whip out 20 moves of
Dragon theory before.
Rattling off moves parrot fashion is one reason why their ratings are so low -
they didn't understand the openings or the consequences, even if they play the
right moves.
>This is in my experience, and very common. I have no idea why John Fernandez
>denies it. Even GMs says its so.
>
>Phil Innes
Denies what? That there's cheating? Sure, there's some. It's horribly
overestimated, though. There's MUCH more cheating in these 8+2 prize tourneys,
of course. That's why many play 3 0 now.
However, it's a bit insulting to yourself when every opponent of yours that
plays a sharp theoretical line or comes up with an excellent sacrifice or
tactica move is cheating.
John Fernandez
John Fernandez
>As I state in the article, it is impossible to know without direct
>observation.
>I've reported three suspected cheats, one was confirmed by ICC speedtrap.
Well done. :)
>Nothing happened with the other two. And I was quite sure about one of them
>(this last was on USCL).
To be fair, that doesn't mean "nothing happened". I think it's a good idea that
what happens to those accused of cheating remain private.
>Generally speaking, I try to screen people with the
>procedure outlined in the article. So I think I have lower exposure than
>someone that doesn't.
Agreed. There's also a residual benefit - which is that you avoid the 7 day
trial accounts which tend to be worse in the form of disconnections, abuse and
cheating.
>This is probably true. Unfortunately, it is a handy excuse for people after
>they lose. I was hoping that the procedure I outlined would inject a little
>objectivity into the issue.
Agreed. Perhaps I have more of a problem with the cover than the article
itself. It seems very scary, and seems to indicate that there's a huge problem.
I don't blame you for that.
>John, I never made any statements about cheating being rampant. This is
>something that you brought to the article.
Yes, I get that feeling more from the cover than from the article.
>I would hope they don't freak out. However, ratings info, move times, and the
>game score constitute nearly the total body of information that is available.
>If you want to draw an inference, you've got to work with what you have.
Did you go much into move times? I can't recall.
>As for the blunder check, I would hope that people are running one anyway,
>when
>they do post mortems.
True enough!
>The population of people that play online, and the management of the servers
>(secondarily).
>
>Ideally, what I would like is a "good feeling" that the servers are enforcing
>anti-cheating policies. Servers should also conspicuously post addresses for
>people to send complaints to (maybe like a trouble-ticket approach?). Some
>still do not do this.
>
>I don't expect total transparency insofar as cheat determination is
>concerned.
>What I would like are some assurances, and feedback when an accusation is
>made
>(once again, I think the trouble ticket analogy is a good one).
Aha, okay. So, in your mind, who is doing this? ICC? WCHOFL? PlayChess? WCN?
FICS?
John Fernandez
Chess One
"John Fernandez" <jcfern...@aol.commeepmeep> wrote in message
news:20040407130147...@mb-m05.aol.com...
> >Robert, if I play a "1350" player who manages 18 perfect moves in a
Pelikan,
> >I know he is cheating. Shoot! I am a thousand points higher and its hard
as
> >hell not to confuse the lines :)
>
> I sincerely hope you're kidding. I've seen 3 digit players whip out 20
moves of
> Dragon theory before.
You want to play me for money John? I particularly like playing both sides
of accelerated dragons. Maybe the 7...Ng4 system.
> Rattling off moves parrot fashion is one reason why their ratings are so
low -
> they didn't understand the openings or the consequences, even if they play
the
> right moves.
Besides, against anyone who does this for 10 moves straight, playing an
unusual move causes massive anxiety <grin> because they have never thought
through the position and don't understand its moment, and only know that
what you have played is unusual - is it safe to proceed with bookish lines
anyway? - or is it a disaster to do so? <rofl>
> >This is in my experience, and very common. I have no idea why John
Fernandez
> >denies it. Even GMs says its so.
> >
> >Phil Innes
>
> Denies what? That there's cheating? Sure, there's some. It's horribly
> overestimated, though.
Do you mean more or less than 15% of games? That's my estimate.
> There's MUCH more cheating in these 8+2 prize tourneys,
> of course. That's why many play 3 0 now.
>
> However, it's a bit insulting to yourself when every opponent of yours
that
> plays a sharp theoretical line or comes up with an excellent sacrifice or
> tactica move is cheating.
? I'm sorry, I think those are your words, not mine.
It is 'insulting' when /the same player/ gets befuddled in a subsequent game
with an out of book line [or less usual line, and is lost 4 moves later.
Then loses 10 times by the same method, sometimes occasioned by only playing
a waiting move - something that's not booked.
<grin>
This is as true at higher levels, and Korchnoi once remarked that this is
how he beat masters in simuls.
Phil
> John Fernandez
Sam Sloan
>I've browsed through the recent copy, and while the English is
>improving, the lack of a real editor at the helm still shows.
Sorry, but I disagree. I think that the magazine was well done and the
cover is guaranteed to attract attention. The cover is a vast
improvement over the collage covers of the past. Three collumns across
rather than the previous two may be distracting, but it is necessary
to get more chess into fewer pages.
Sam Sloan
The Masked Bishop
That's exactly the mindset that has killed us financially. "Attract
attention" from whom? Non-USCF chess players, browsing the racks at
Barnes and Noble? Because if that's your answer, then stop running for
the Board. Trying to position Chess Life as some means of membership
recruitment is a total waste of time and money.
Nobody joins the USCF because they stumbled on an "attractive"
magazine cover at Borders. They join through local clubs, the
Internet, word-of-mouth, or tournaments. This is why Chess Life should
be reduced to a b/w newsletter with just TLAs, crosstables, and club
features. Lose the color, lose the columnists, lose the glossy paper,
and stop dumping what little money we have into this boat anchor.
But of course they won't. Chess Life will soldier on, in all of its
over-budgeted, terribly written, wretchedly produced, unmarketable
glory, supported by blinkered, locked-in-the-past people who still
think the Internet is secondary to the Post Office as a method of
communication. People who still think money orders are a valid method
of payment. People who want tournament results submitted on floppy
disks. Are you one of them, Sloan?
I look forward to the "goodbye" issue. It should be very collectible.
Kalev Pehme, who bears the dubious title of Worst Chess Life Editor of
All Time, will probably write all the articles.
David Kane
"The Masked Bishop" <t...@c4.com> wrote in message
news:7c0f795b.04040...@posting.google.com...
> >the cover is guaranteed to attract attention.<
>
> That's exactly the mindset that has killed us financially. "Attract
> attention" from whom? Non-USCF chess players, browsing the racks at
> Barnes and Noble? Because if that's your answer, then stop running for
> the Board. Trying to position Chess Life as some means of membership
> recruitment is a total waste of time and money.
Interesting that no one has connected the lack of top USA players
to the fact that the USCF devotes its resources to publishing a lame
magazine and other makework. Consequently, the USA lacks a national
organization for fostering chess. That can't help.
DK
Ron Suarez
>>the cover is guaranteed to attract attention.<
>
>That's exactly the mindset that has killed us financially. "Attract
>attention" from whom? Non-USCF chess players, browsing the racks at
>Barnes and Noble? Because if that's your answer, then stop running for
>the Board. Trying to position Chess Life as some means of membership
>recruitment is a total waste of time and money.
>
>Nobody joins the USCF because they stumbled on an "attractive"
>magazine cover at Borders. They join through local clubs, the
>Internet, word-of-mouth, or tournaments. This is why Chess Life should
>be reduced to a b/w newsletter with just TLAs, crosstables, and club
>features. Lose the color, lose the columnists, lose the glossy paper,
>and stop dumping what little money we have into this boat anchor.
Sam never said the attention getting cover would bring in members.
Try to actually pay attention to the factual details TMB, not your
personal slant and bias.
>
>But of course they won't. Chess Life will soldier on, in all of its
>over-budgeted, terribly written, wretchedly produced, unmarketable
>glory, supported by blinkered, locked-in-the-past people who still
>think the Internet is secondary to the Post Office as a method of
>communication. People who still think money orders are a valid method
>of payment. People who want tournament results submitted on floppy
>disks. Are you one of them, Sloan?
As a membership organization, the USCF must be versatile in its
ability to accomodate all types of members, even you TMB.
>
>I look forward to the "goodbye" issue. It should be very collectible.
>Kalev Pehme, who bears the dubious title of Worst Chess Life Editor of
>All Time, will probably write all the articles.
Who actually gave Pehme this "title"? I think that only you, TMB, has
said anything like this. You certainly show no qualifications or
abilities to make such a judgement.
I think someone should give you a goodbye issue for you and you alone.
Ron Suarez
Ken Albin
"Robert Pawlak" wrote
> Phil,
>
> Yeah, perfect play in certain openings is really suspicious. While I've
seen
> some 1300 players reel off perfect theory like a GM, their middlegame is
> generally not of the same caliber.
I agree that there appear to be cheating by some on chess servers. One
reason that I mainly play unrated these days is because several suspicious
rated games spoiled the idea of fair competition for me. On the other hand,
I would be very slow to directly accuse someone of cheating. There would
have to be solid evidence for me to do this. Once I was playing a 1900
player and I played a complex sacrificial line I was very proud of at the
time. After the game he accused me of using a computer. I happen to know
that I was using no aids except this old brain of mine, but he was convinced
that anyone who could beat him with a 10 move combination must be cheating.
This type of warped thinking could lead to 'witch hunts' where honest people
are banned or censored because their play seems somehow too good, too
mechanical, etc... Unrated chess seems to have less of this type of garbage.
I suppose if someone is going to cheat or accuse someone of cheating they
want to earn points in doing so. Sad.
Ken Albin
Neil Brennen
"Ken Albin" <alb...@aug.com> wrote in message
news:1081728103.202285@savina...
>
> "Robert Pawlak" wrote
> > Phil,
> >
> > Yeah, perfect play in certain openings is really suspicious. While I've
> seen
> > some 1300 players reel off perfect theory like a GM, their middlegame
is
> > generally not of the same caliber.
>
> I agree that there appear to be cheating by some on chess servers. One
> reason that I mainly play unrated these days is because several suspicious
> rated games spoiled the idea of fair competition for me. On the other
hand,
> I would be very slow to directly accuse someone of cheating. There would
> have to be solid evidence for me to do this. Once I was playing a 1900
> player and I played a complex sacrificial line I was very proud of at the
> time.
Was it an Albin counter-gambit?
After the game he accused me of using a computer. I happen to know
> that I was using no aids except this old brain of mine, but he was
convinced
> that anyone who could beat him with a 10 move combination must be
cheating.
That's a common complaint in correspondence chess, a form of play that
includes on-line games such as you describe. It reminds me of the infamous
All-Romanian vs International Email Chess Club match of 2002. A player on
the IECC team accused a Romanian of cheating, and his 'proof' was the
computer analysis the IECC player did on the game. The amusing part of this
was that IECC bans computer use, and so why was the IECC player using a
computer to analyze a game in progress?
> This type of warped thinking could lead to 'witch hunts' where honest
people
> are banned or censored because their play seems somehow too good, too
> mechanical, etc... Unrated chess seems to have less of this type of
garbage.
> I suppose if someone is going to cheat or accuse someone of cheating they
> want to earn points in doing so. Sad.
>
> Ken Albin
Good post, Ken.